Julian Brazier: Yes, but while we need to move to a per-plane tax, does the Minister not understand that the Government's proposal to increase hugely the long haul to short haul ratio of 4:1, will discourage long-haul point-to-point flights, which reduce the carbon footprint, and will encourage people instead to take connecting flights to European airports, thus hitting our aviation industry and increasing the global carbon impact?

Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman should also reflect on the fact that as oil duties rise, there will be more fuel efficient cars that are cheaper to run as one gets more miles to the gallon. Given where oil prices are at the moment, they will concentrate motorists' minds.

Angela Eagle: As a country, we certainly have to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and on oil, in particular, in the medium to long term. It is therefore important—and this was discussed at the G8—that advanced economies such as ours wean themselves off their reliance on finite energy sources. The car duties have a role to play in that; as Professor Julia King said in her report, we need to be able to shift to cleaner engines and engines that reduce our carbon footprint.

Angela Eagle: We understand the extra pressures that high oil prices are placing on many families in the UK at the moment. It is important to understand that volunteer drivers can claim their costs back, but they have to keep records of the mileage that they have donated for voluntary purposes. If they do that, they will not owe any tax on it. The approved mileage allowance payment, or AMAP, scheme is a simplification. If such drivers wish to claim the actual costs of the miles that they drive, they can do that.

Peter Viggers: Does the Financial Secretary realise that many people are baffled by the Government's policy towards low-income households. Did the Prime Minister intend to damage their interests in last year's Budget? How many of those families remain disadvantaged, and how many does she think live in Glasgow, East?

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that, across the world, there have been problems with credit, especially in relation to the housing market. I have said on many occasions that lenders need to understand the security on which they are lending and to ensure that someone taking out a loan can repay it. The position of the housing market in the United States is different from that of the housing market in this country. The United States still has the problem that, in many parts of that country, there are larger numbers of houses that it is not possible to sell. As long as that problem endures, there will be problems in the United States economy.
	More generally, there is widespread recognition that what is happening in the world is more profound than many people believed at the end of last year and even at the beginning of this year. That will have a profound effect on developed and developing countries alike. That is why it is necessary for us to take action where appropriate internationally, and why it will be increasingly necessary for us to take action here at home to help people through an undoubtedly difficult period.

Andy Reed: I thank the Minister for that reply and for the efforts that she and others are making to ensure that the existing community amateur sports clubs—CASC—scheme is widely taken up. I believe that 5,000 out of a potential 40,000 clubs have taken it up so far, bringing in about £41 million for sports clubs up and down the country. Is she aware, however, that gift aid on child subscriptions, for example, is the current campaign of the Central Council of Physical Recreation and that property-owning charities like the National Trust can participate in it? At the moment, it appears that the administrative burden is the main blocking point, but if other charities can do it as part of HMRC, can we now extend the scheme to sports clubs, which would make an enormous impact in many of our most deprived communities in providing some of our best services for young people?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please have a seat? I must reiterate that these are Topical Questions, and the questions should be punchy. They should not be speeches. The Chancellor will try to reply to what the hon. Gentleman has said so far.

Kitty Ussher: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. The money guidance pathfinder, which will start early next year in the north of England—including his constituency—will offer free, impartial advice through a variety of organisations and channels, not just the web but the telephone, and also face-to-face.

George Osborne: May I press the Chancellor on the answer that he has just given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay)? He knows full well that the Prime Minister told my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition last month
	"If the right hon. Gentleman looks in detail at the proposal"
	—on vehicle excise duty—
	"he will see that the majority of drivers will benefit from it."—[ Official Report, 4 June 2008; Vol. 476, c. 765.]
	It is clear from the Treasury figures published yesterday that that is not the case. Will the Prime Minister be apologising to the House?

Alistair Darling: As I told the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) a few moments ago, I saw what the Prime Minister said at Question Time on 14 May. He said
	"the majority of motorists benefit or pay no more in vehicle excise duty as a result."—[ Official Report, 14 May 2008; Vol. 475, c. 1380.]
	That is what the Prime Minister said.

George Osborne: May I press the Chancellor on this? On 4 June, the Prime Minister said that a majority of drivers would benefit from the VED changes. The Chancellor knows perfectly well that that is what the Prime Minister said. Is this not the substance of the issue? Nine million families face higher car taxes at a time when few can afford them. Poorer drivers will be penalised because the tax is retrospective and hits second-hand cars. Any pretence that it helps the environment has been demolished by Greenpeace, which says that it gives green taxes a bad name.
	Everyone knows that the Labour party is sleepwalking into another 10p tax fiasco. Will the Chancellor perform the necessary U-turn, or do we have to wait for Heathcliff to come down from Dithering Heights before they abandon this disastrous plan to tax families already feeling the squeeze?

Desmond Turner: My right hon. Friend will undoubtedly agree that many of the economic ills from which the world is suffering at the moment are down to the lending policies of banks and other financial institutions, varying from the extreme foolhardiness that led to the sub-prime problems to the current extreme caution on the part of banks and building societies, which is causing economic contraction in the UK. Has my right hon. Friend got any thoughts on what could be done by way of regulation to moderate those extremes?

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend is right. As I said earlier, if some of the banks—especially some of those in the US—had had a better idea of the basis on which they were lending, and that some of the people to whom they were lending money were not in a position to repay it when interest rates increased, they would not be in their present difficulties. It is important for any institution, wherever it is—the US, here or anywhere else—to ensure that it knows what it is doing when it lends money. It is also important to ensure that the regulators have in place a regime that ensures that companies are properly focused on the risks to which they might be exposed. In this country, we are in discussions with lenders to try to ensure that the difficulties that some people face are dealt with properly. The general point that my hon. Friend makes about ensuring that institutions are properly alive to the risks to which they may be exposed is very important.

Alistair Darling: As I have said on many occasions, the actions taken by the former Chancellor, who is now Prime Minister, over the past 10 years have meant that our economy has grown for more than 10 years. That is something that the hon. Gentleman could never have said of the Government whom he supported. Our economy has grown and remains resilient. Although we are in a difficult time and are going through a pretty turbulent period, we are better placed to deal with that turbulence than this country ever was in the past.

Gordon Brown: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the G8 summit, which took place under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister of Japan between 7 and 9 July. The summit was unique not just for the range of issues discussed in three interlocking summits—the African outreach, G8 plus 5 and major economies summits—but for the large number of countries whose Presidents and Prime Ministers took part.
	Let me first draw the House's attention to the unprecedented G8 statement on Zimbabwe. In the face of the deepening tragedy in Zimbabwe—the intimidation and deaths, the violation of human rights, the detention of political prisoners—the G8 made it clear that we do not accept the legitimacy of the Mugabe Government and that the UN Secretary-General should now appoint a special envoy both to report on the deterioration of human rights and to support regional mediation efforts to bring about change.
	The G8 also called for the immediate resumption of humanitarian aid, which is essential to preventing further suffering and loss of life. We resolved that we would take further steps to take financial and other measures against those individuals responsible for the violence. As the House knows, we have followed that up immediately with a UN Security Council resolution, which is now being discussed in New York. We propose an international arms embargo on Zimbabwe, including a ban on all supplies of any arms, weapons, ammunition and military equipment. We list in the resolution 14 named members of the Mugabe inner cabal against whom travel and financial sanctions should be imposed by the whole international community. We have now set in train work to identify, in Africa, Asia, America and Europe, through a forensic assessment, both the physical assets and the bank accounts and finances of those 14 people. The UN resolution will also establish a committee to monitor the operation of those sanctions.
	With worldwide sanctions and the worldwide arms embargo that we propose, our aim is that there will be no safe haven and no hiding place for the criminal cabal that surrounds the Mugabe regime. Now that the G8 has taken its decision, we propose that the UN put the full weight of the international community behind isolating an illegitimate Government.
	At the heart of the summit's other considerations and conclusions were the triple shocks hurting the world economy: the doubling of oil prices, rising food prices and, because of the credit crunch, the rising cost of money. Those are three shocks that, it is now agreed, cannot be solved by traditional monetary policy means alone but require direct action that will tackle the sources of oil and food inflation and make for more stable commodity, agricultural and financial markets.
	The summit also reflected a world that is changing fast, with a consensus about the new economic power in Asia; about the fact that oil, commodity and food prices represent global problems that require global solutions; that there is an economic as well as an environmental imperative to break our dependence on oil; and that we should act in Africa and on international development for moral reasons, but also because developing countries hold the key to addressing our food shortages and will be the ones most affected by climate change.
	First, while the summit noted that there are many explanations for the doubling of oil prices in a year, and that the scale of change is now greater than the oil shock of the 1970s, the basic challenge, which cannot be resolved by one country or group of countries alone, is that oil demand exceeds oil supply now, and will in the future. Although Governments are taking action domestically—Britain with special winter payments, new help for low-income families and the current freeze on fuel duty—the G8 agreed that the global conditions for ensuring a more stable international energy market were, first, expanding nuclear power, with the International Energy Agency suggesting that we will need 1,000 new nuclear power stations over the next four decades; secondly, accelerating the expansion worldwide of renewables; thirdly, radical measures in each of our continents to improve energy efficiency; and fourthly, co-operation between oil producers and oil consumers to ensure greater understanding of the balance between supply and demand and then to ensure new investment in all sources of energy. The G8 supported the London summit that will be held later this year between producers and consumers.
	Britain reported that, for our part, we are following up changes to the North sea licensing structure with a review of the current fiscal regime, with the aim of increasing recovery from new and existing oil fields. We will be discussing with Nigeria next week how the UK can work with the Nigerian authorities to address security problems in the Nigerian delta, which are costing 1 million barrels of oil a day. We are working with the Iraqi Government to build capacity in the oil sector there, and we are discussing with the Gulf states and others how sovereign wealth funds and oil revenues can be recycled into wider energy investments.
	Global action to improve energy efficiency and to reduce the world's dependence on oil will help not only to reduce energy and fuel bills for households and industry in countries like ours but to fight the battle against climate change. That is essential to the future prosperity and security of the wider world. For the first time, the G8 agreed not just to consider but to adopt as part of an international agreement a long-term goal of a cut of at least 50 per cent. in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Also for the first time, we agreed on the need to have interim goals and national plans to achieve them. I welcome the fact that the major economies group, which now includes China, India, Mexico, South Africa, Brazil, Australia, Indonesia and South Korea, as well as the G8, agreed to continue to work together in the UN to achieve an international climate agreement next year, and that the major emerging economies have agreed to adopt appropriate mitigation actions with a view to reducing their emissions below what is called "business as usual".
	As a measure of our shared commitment to meet these challenging goals, the G8 also agreed to 25 recommendations on energy efficiency standards, including agreement that each country will put in place car and consumer goods standards—standards we said that, if implemented globally, could cut global oil consumption by 15 per cent. and energy-related carbon emissions by 20 per cent. That is the equivalent of all the emissions of the USA and Japan combined. As I told the summit, these standards include Britain pressing in the European Union for an average fuel efficiency target of 100g of carbon dioxide per kilometre by 2020, and the Secretary of State for Transport is today publishing a consultation paper in support of this target. Britain will also work with other countries in the European Union on the scope for commercialising the production of electric plug-in and hybrid motor vehicles.
	To make a reality of and to monitor higher energy efficiency standards, we are also setting up a new G8 energy forum to meet in the autumn to examine how we can globally adopt new standards and new technologies. This will feed into the next meeting of the consumers and producers dialogue in London, which was supported by the G8 and will happen before the end of the year. We will seek to make permanent these initiatives on energy by setting up an international partnership for energy efficiency co-operation as a high-level forum to accelerate the adoption of these new technologies, and for greater energy efficiency.
	We also know that to adopt alternative energy sources Africa and developing countries must have greater access to funds, so it has been a British initiative to create what has been called the climate investment funds at the World Bank. We agreed measures at the G8 that will provide more than $120 billion in public and private finance for alternative energy and other environmental investments. This is $117 billion through the existing clean energy investment framework, and $6 billion of new funding through the new climate investment funds—a huge new global investment fund of more than $100 billion for tackling climate change and encouraging developing countries to move to alternatives to fossil fuels.
	With rising food prices having an impact at home and abroad, particularly for the poorest, the need for co-ordinated global action is also clear, so the G8 agreed to invest more than $10 billion to meet the short-term humanitarian needs arising from famines, including increases in food aid, but we also agreed to improve food security and measures for agricultural productivity over the longer term.
	One major element in reducing food prices, as well as generating wider global benefits, will be a successful outcome to the Doha trade round, where lowering trade-distorting subsidies and import restrictions could increase the global gross domestic product by as much as €120 billion a year by 2015. The Doha trade round is primarily a development round that will benefit the poorest countries most. But if we are to break the year-long deadlock in negotiations, the upcoming ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organisation on 21 July will be critical. It is a make-or-break meeting for a trade deal, and I discussed the importance of this at the summit with all its participants, including President Bush, the Presidents of Brazil and South Africa and the Prime Minister of India. We agreed that the biggest signal we could send that the present challenges must not be an excuse for a renewed bout of protectionism was signing that world trade deal.
	I hope that all sections of this House will agree that all countries should show the resolution to achieve the breakthrough that we want and need. To support the deal, the G8 also reiterated a commitment to invest $4 billion in aid for trade to help the poorest countries to take advantage of new trading opportunities.
	As part of action this year on the millennium development goals, the G8 also signed up to new action to meet goals on health, and also reaffirmed commitments made at Gleneagles to provide $25 billion in aid to Africa, and $50 billion globally by 2010, as well as establishing universal access to treatment for AIDS. How the world achieves further major advances in the alleviation of poverty, disease and illiteracy is the subject of the UN millennium summit convened by the UN Secretary-General for 25 September. I call on all countries to do what is necessary to meet the promises that they made on the millennium development goals.
	My aim at the summit was to turn generalised commitments that were not time- specific into concrete action and into delivery to address poverty, disease and illiteracy. We agreed that over the next five years we would deliver the commitment of $60 billion to tackle infectious diseases and strengthen health in Africa and developing countries. Some other countries will provide additional resources for health care systems, including our own.
	We also agreed to help to fund in 36 African countries a target of 2.3 health workers per 1,000 people. That would mean in total an additional 1.5 million new doctors, nurses or health workers, including a major advance in the number of skilled midwives so that women no longer have to die when unaided during childbirth. The G8 also committed to finance 100 million bed nets by 2010 for the prevention of malaria—this could save 600,000 lives—while $1 billion of new funding for the education fast-track initiative will immediately help a further 10 million children to go to school.
	During the summit, I had a number of key bilateral meetings with other leaders on millennium development goal issues, and on other issues as well. This included a meeting with the new President of Russia, when we agreed on co-ordinated international action on Iran and the middle east peace process. But I raised in detail all the major issues that exist between our two countries, our position on the Litvinenko case, the treatment of the British Council and the withdrawal of visas for BP employees.
	The G8 also agreed that, in a world of global financial flows, it is essential that immediate action be taken to tackle the impact of financial instability. Action at home should be accompanied internationally by clearer standards for the valuation of assets, changes in the role and use of credit rating agencies and better management of liquidity. More generally, there was agreement on the need for concerted global action to reform the International Monetary Fund. There was agreement that the IMF should become a better early warning system for the world economy, and there was a wider agreement that the international institutions set up in the 1940s were now in need of fundamental reform to ensure that they were fit to meet the new challenges of the 21st century. Further work will be done over the coming year to produce proposals for their reform and renewal.
	Just as on Zimbabwe, where we have seen the growth of an international coalition for change, there is growing agreement round the world—and real progress now—on the need for detailed collaborative actions on energy, climate change, trade and international development. I commend this statement to the House.

Gordon Brown: Let me start with Zimbabwe where I believe that, as on some of the other issues raised, there is common ground. It was a major breakthrough at the G8 that the Russians and other countries agreed we should impose sanctions on Zimbabwe and that a UN envoy should go to Zimbabwe. The Secretary-General was at the G8 and wants to do that immediately. It was a major breakthrough that people agreed that the sanctions should start with the major figures in the Mugabe regime. I do not deny that the European Union has a wider list, but internationally agreed sanctions right across the world to deal with assets held by members of the Mugabe regime in Africa, and assets that we know are held in Asia and perhaps in parts of Europe outside the EU, will be a major prize.
	I accept that the United Nations resolution goes further in two major respects, and detailed negotiations are taking place in New York at the moment, but I hope that the whole international community, having seen the statement of the G8 and the statement of the African Union about the illegitimacy of election process, will agree that they should take together the action we propose—sanctions, with the embargo that would happen on arms, and the envoy to Zimbabwe. It is a delicate situation: violence is being practised against members not just of the community in Zimbabwe but of the Opposition party who have a legitimate claim to having won elections to Parliament. It is important that we support the mediation efforts that are taking place, but it is also important that the whole weight of the international community is behind the efforts to secure transition in Zimbabwe. I believe that time is short for that, so it is important that the UN pass its resolution as soon as possible, and I hope that all countries and all continents will get behind it.
	The second issue that the right hon. Gentleman raised was climate change. I have to disagree with him: it is major progress that the major countries, including America and the rest of the EU and Japan, have signed up to an international agreement that, if accepted, would mean a cut of 50 per cent. in carbon emissions by 2050. That did not happen a year ago and it has obviously not been possible for many years in our discussions on climate change. For it to happen at the summit is an important step forward.
	I do not think the right hon. Gentleman properly appreciated that agreement that there would be a need for interim targets in 2020 and 2025 was also an important step forward. There was a suggestion that countries should provide their national plans to do so. We are not just putting forward proposals that there be targets set that have to be met by our children's generation, but that there are targets that have to be met by this generation as well.
	The developing countries are now readier to sign up to mitigation efforts and to their own standards for meeting the climate change agenda. That will be part of the talks that are about to take place, including all the different summits in the run-up to Copenhagen, as well as a full discussion of climate change issues at the next G8 meeting with the major economies that I have just listed. What makes it possible for developing countries and emerging markets to sign up to targets is something that has not yet been properly recognised as an outcome of the summit—the $150 billion or so being made available through the World Bank as part of public-private partnerships to enable those countries to invest in alternatives to coal-fired power stations and deforestation—so that they can invest long-term in sources of energy that are more environmentally efficient. I believe we have made major progress on the climate change agenda. The right hon. Gentleman raised this, and it is very important that we recognise that Europe is leading the debate; but we can lead the debate only as part of Europe, playing a full part as a member of the European Union, and I hope at some point that at least the sensible voices in the Conservative party will wake up to that.
	On food prices, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We have put forward major changes to the common agricultural policy, which is up for review this year. It is part of the budget settlements of the last few years, and I hope that other members of the European community can be persuaded of the need for major reform of the common agricultural policy.
	We need to act on famine now, which is why additional money is being provided by all G8 member countries to deal with the famines in Africa and elsewhere as a result of rising food prices. We need to invest in the equivalent of a green revolution in Africa to complement what happened in Asia, so that Africa ceases to be a net importer of food but, with a population mostly dependent on the land, starts to become a net exporter of food. That will be to their benefit by raising their earnings, and also to that of the rest of the world by reducing food shortages. More and more, the development agenda, the environmental agenda and the economic agenda are coming together and, as I have said to other countries that are looking at their development aid budgets at the moment, it would make no sense for them to cut development aid because it is needed to help Africa with both the agricultural agenda and the environmental agenda.
	I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that we did not do enough on millennium development goals at the summit. It is true that there is legitimate debate among countries about the level of development aid— [ Interruption. ] The right hon. Gentleman said that countries were not meeting their commitments to the 2010 target. We in Britain are meeting our commitments, and it is right to tell other countries that they, too, should meet their commitments. That is why we try to turn the abstract promises of the past into concrete commitments—what was being said on health, malaria, education and agriculture and dealing with the problems of food.
	I come now to the world economy. I hope the right hon. Gentleman has understood the message from the G8 summit: although we can do a great deal in our own countries—we have raised the winter fuel allowance and frozen fuel duty—we have responsibilities to the environmental agenda, as he used to recognise, which is why we are dealing with pollution from cars. There are global problems that require global solutions. Conservative blindness to the need for co-operation in the European Union means the Conservatives do not recognise the need for global action in the way we do. We will continue to work for global co-operation to deal with food, to deal with oil, to deal with commodities and to make for a smoother functioning global economy. I hope all parties will come to recognise that global co-operation and global leadership are now more necessary, not less relevant than before.

Gordon Brown: I had a very full discussion with President Medvedev about those issues. The meeting ran substantially over time, because of the detailed discussion of the issues that the right hon. Gentleman raises. I reminded the President that the British Council was operating within the rule of law and that it was completely unfair to deal with the British Council as the Russians did. I hope that its full position will be restored as soon as possible. On BP, I made it absolutely clear that the visa decision was not a commercial issue, but an issue for the Administration itself, and that whatever were the difficulties with the commercial relationship between two Russian companies, the Russian Government had a duty to look at the visas. I made it clear also that the Litvinenko issue would not be closed. We have justice to do on the part of someone who was murdered on British soil, and the current position is not acceptable.

Peter Hain: I congratulate the Prime Minister on the strong and principled leadership that he showed at the G8 summit, and on Zimbabwe I welcome the sanctions measures that he announced. However, will he consider three additional measures: first, return home the ruling clique's sons, daughters and other relatives who are being expensively educated abroad; secondly, ban all Air Zimbabwe flights to the European Union, including Britain, and internationally; and thirdly, discuss with the South African Government their continued supply of electricity, which enables Mugabe and his ruling clique to escape the universal and persistent cuts that are imposed on almost everybody else? Finally, as a fellow anti-apartheid activist of decades ago, he will recall exactly the same arguments being used against sanctions on South Africa as are now being used against sanctions on Mugabe: they were wrong then and they are wrong now.

Gordon Brown: Ten million more children will receive education as a result of a decision made only this week. That means that since 2000, when we set the millennium development goal, 44 million children will have received education and another 10 million will in the next year. That is us making progress towards meeting the goals set at Gleneagles. Take the provision of malaria nets; 100 million malaria nets have been promised, and they will save tens of thousands of lives as a result of our decision.
	Take health as a whole. I was asked by the Leader of the Opposition, and probably did not reply in detail, about the issue of HIV/AIDS. The very fact that we have agreed a timetable for $60 million to be spent over five years means that money will go directly this year, next year and the year after to HIV/AIDS and the alleviation of other diseases—from polio, to tuberculosis, to pneumococcus and other diseases that need to be treated. We are trying to turn promises at Gleneagles that were made sometimes more generally, without being time-specific, into concrete actions. I must say that that is possible only because we are part of a United Kingdom that has weight around the world in pushing the proposals and getting agreement from the big nations. It could not happen under the Scottish National party.

Gordon Brown: The hon. Gentleman is right that the EU can do things; it has already offered unilaterally to remove many of its restrictions on trade with Africa. As he will agree, the importance of a world trade agreement is that every continent of the world is involved—that is the prize. It would not be enough for the EU to take action and for America not to reduce its agricultural subsidies, and it would certainly be of no great benefit to the poorest countries of the world if some of the major continents were not involved. He is absolutely right that we must move forward with an attempt to get an agreement on 21 July. I believe that the director general of the World Trade Organisation is about to produce additional proposals for that. We will give him the support that we can in getting an agreement. As I say, not only Europe and America but the developing countries and emerging markets must play a part in making this deal possible. I talked to President Lula, Prime Minister Singh and President Mbeki, all of whom have a major part to play in making this possible. I am convinced that these major world leaders want this deal to happen; we must now get through the remaining difficulties that have been the bottleneck to negotiations' succeeding over the past year. I think that that is possible, and all our efforts over the next few days will be towards making it possible.

Kate Hoey: The Prime Minister should know that all of us in Parliament and outside Parliament who have campaigned on Zimbabwe for many years know that the seismic change in international attitudes to Zimbabwe, particularly the unanimous decision that it is an illegitimate regime, would not have happened without the personal dedication and commitment that he has given, not only at the G8 but over the past six months or so. I think that all Zimbabweans in this country will want to thank him. Does he agree that it would absolutely shocking if something happened that allowed Mugabe still to attend the Beijing Olympics?

Gordon Brown: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman: this is an international problem that requires an international solution. We are 1 per cent. of the world's population, and we need other countries to work with us, not only the G8 countries but the whole of the rest of the world. I see a determination on the part of developing countries and emerging markets also to be part of a new agreement at Copenhagen, and I hope that we can work to achieve that.
	I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will also acknowledge that we need to make decisions in this country so that we can play our part in reducing our dependence on oil. That requires us to make a decision on nuclear power, which I hope that all the Opposition parties will now support. It also requires us to make difficult decisions on wind power, on which we have not previously had the wholehearted support of Opposition parties. If we are to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, we will need to expand both nuclear power and renewables, and I hope that we can still build a consensus in this country on the need to do that.

Harriet Harman: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 14 July—Second Reading of the Employment Bill [ Lords].
	Tuesday 15 July—Consideration of Lords amendments to the National Insurance Contributions Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill, followed by motion to approve the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No.2) Order 2008.
	Wednesday 16 July—Opposition day [18th allotted day]. There will be a debate on fuel duty followed by a debate on trade unions and the Warwick agreement. Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.
	Thursday 17 July—Motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to freedom of information. The House will be asked to approve resolutions relating to the Intelligence and Security Committee, followed by a general debate on the Intelligence and Security Committee annual report 2006-07.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 21 July will include:
	Monday 21 July— Consideration of Lords amendments to the Housing and Regeneration Bill.
	Tuesday 22 July— Proceedings will start at 11.30 am. Motion on the summer recess Adjournment, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Crossrail Bill. The House will not adjourn until the Speaker has signified Royal Assent.

John Bercow: Can we please have a topical debate next week on speech, language and communication services for children and young people? Given that the ability to communicate is the key life skill of all our children, but that at present hundreds of thousands of them struggle to do so, would the Leader of the House accept that such a debate would be hugely appreciated by those of us who have worked on an entirely non-partisan basis with professionals and the voluntary sector alike, supported by the Government, to chart a route to improved provision in the future?

Julian Lewis: That fine newspaper of record,  The Sunday Telegraph, found plenty of space to attack me last week over the freedom of information matter concerning the publication of Members' home addresses, but curiously found no space at all to record the fact that the House had unanimously passed the resolution that those addresses should not be disclosed. I am sure that that had nothing to do with the fact that one of the paper's own reporters initiated the dangerous campaign to publish the addresses. Can the Leader of the House therefore spell out, in words of one syllable, what the significance will be of the statutory instrument that is scheduled for debate on 17 July? Can she give particular attention to the possibility that MPs will need some guidance to be sent to electoral registration officers, so that they can be accorded the right of anonymous registration? Otherwise, the effect of the standing order will be vitiated.

Lorely Burt: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 13, line 26, leave out 'direct' and insert 'advise in writing'.

Lorely Burt: I agree. Let me give an example that I cited in Committee. Coventry council prosecuted Tesco for selling out-of-date food, and the supermarket was fined £133,000. The procedures agreed between the primary authority and Tesco were perfectly good, but they were not being implemented properly by a local store. However well run a primary authority may be, is it really best placed to say whether a business in a certain area is following exactly the advice that it has been given, or is the local authority that inspected the store best placed to do that? Equally, does the LBRO—a small, unelected and untried quango—really know better than a local authority what poses a risk to people in the area?
	The amendment would give the primary authority an opportunity to advise the prosecuting authority that it does not agree with the action that it is taking, and that advice would be disclosable if the matter came to court. A business that was prosecuted or appealed against an enforcement notice would be able to produce that advice in support of its case.
	Local authorities do not take enforcement action against businesses without serious thought, and a local authority which has been advised that the primary authority believes that the action should not proceed will clearly consider the matter again very carefully before allowing it to proceed. The amendment retains the provisions that prevent the authority from acting without consulting the primary authority. However, I believe that if, after consideration, a council decides to take action, it should be for a court to determine whether that action is right, not an unaccountable quango—and not another local authority which will not have to answer to the voters of say, Wolverhampton if it fails to protect them.
	Defending clause 28 in Committee, the Minister said:
	"Neither LBRO nor the primary authority can give a once-and-for-all answer about the legality of a particular approach. Rightly, that decision must lie with the courts." ——[ Official Report, Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Public Bill Committee, 19 June 2008; c. 124.]
	I agree with that sentiment, but the clause as it stands will deny a court the chance to rule on the proposed action if the primary authority and the LBRO veto it.

Patrick McFadden: The LBRO will be responsible for giving advice to local authorities. We hope that they will have regard to that when enforcing regulations. Parts of the Bill offer benefits for a consumer who is carrying out a transaction with a business that operates only in the local authority area. Part 2, which we are discussing, is specifically about the primary authority and enforcement authority situation.
	Let me turn properly to the amendments moved by the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt). I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) and commend the hon. Lady on her persistence in pursuing some of the points. However, I am afraid that I shall not be able to accept them on behalf of the Government today. Let me set out why.
	The amendments would remove the powers that the Bill creates for the primary authority or the LBRO to give directions that an enforcement action should not go ahead and substitutes for them an advice-giving power. I understand that that is about protecting local authorities' discretion to pursue enforcement actions should they choose to do so.
	Let me say how we want the primary authority scheme to operate. I referred to the importance of consistency, and businesses have asked us to provide access to a scheme that will provide more dependable advice that they can rely on and that will provide a quicker resolution of disputes between authorities, which will give greater certainty and clarity not just for them but for their customers, too. That is why we are looking for the right balance between that and local authorities' freedom to act.
	The Government starts from the principle that when a business and a local authority have gone to the trouble of establishing a primary authority for regulation there should be a presumption that the advice given by one professional in one part of the country should be respected by other professionals across the country unless, of course, there are good reasons. There are some safeguards. The amendment, however, would not provide that as it would remove the primary authority's ability to intervene decisively in how a business was treated.
	The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford referred to the potential for confusion. I believe that the amendments would result in more confusion than the Bill as it stands because they would give far greater freedom for an enforcement authority to ignore the advice of a primary authority than under the relationship that we are trying to construct.

Patrick McFadden: If an enforcement authority believes that the advice given by the primary authority is wrong it can appeal to the LBRO as set out in the Bill and the LBRO could rule on the situation. The amendments, if we accepted them, would put the informal home authority relationships that exist in some cases on to a statutory footing. Under the current schemes, local authorities are informally encouraged to contact the local authority with whom the business has a partnership before taking serious action. The difficulty is that under the existing schemes, the consistency that we seek is not delivered. Businesses are finding inconsistent advice around the country. We are not convinced that simply putting that advisory relationship on to a statutory footing would be the best means of tackling that inconsistency.

Patrick McFadden: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	As I noted throughout our discussions on Second Reading and in Committee, the Bill seeks to equip regulators with the right tools and duties to address the many different circumstances in which they are expected to enforce regulation in practice.
	In our debate this afternoon on the amendments, we debated two major issues that the Bill is intended to address: inconsistency and inflexibility in the regulatory system. The five principles of good regulation feature prominently in the Bill: consistency, transparency, targeting, proportionality and regulators' accountability.
	The background to the Bill is that in 2005 Philip Hampton reported to the Government on the burdens that arise from the enforcement of regulations. His report made it clear that better regulation is a matter not purely of policy making and legislation or of making policy better in the first instance, but of ensuring the right framework for the enforcement and upholding of regulations. This requires a system that provides effective enforcement by front-line professionals and the flexible use of sanctions to deal with non-compliance in ways appropriate to each case. Introducing the Bill on Second Reading in the other place, my colleague Lord Jones of Birmingham paid tribute to the expertise that stakeholders had brought to the Bill's development, and I echo his comments. Local authorities and their representatives, the national regulators and business all contributed to its development.
	The Hampton report set out a vision of a regulatory enforcement system in which honest businesses, doing their best to comply with the law, and regulators, seeking to protect the public as effectively as possible, move from a traditional adversarial relationship and work together to secure compliance with regulations intended to protect all our interests.
	I believe that the Bill has, for the most part, been developed in the same spirit, and we are grateful for the input of business regulators, local authorities and all who helped to guide the process. I thank the hon. Members for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk), for Solihull (Lorely Burt) and other hon. Members for their contributions, courtesy and understanding in Committee. The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford probed and pressed, with some skill and some courtesy, for which I am grateful.
	The debate addressed a number of important issues and offered us the chance to consider the safeguards that are rightly attached to many of the Bill's powers. Its tone reflected the fact that before arriving here the Bill benefited from close and detailed scrutiny in the other place, where a number of amendments were made. Those included additional protections on how the local better regulation office would work in practice with local authorities, additional safeguards on the use of the alternative regulatory sanctions set out in part 3 and some refinements of part 4 in respect of how regulators would work, ensuring that there should be no unintended consequences.
	I am grateful for all the work put in by Members on both sides of the House. The Bill is intended to improve how regulation works in our economy, in the interests of the regulated and, most of all, of the public. It is in all our interests for us to have a system in which business can thrive and grow and for the public to be confident that the regulations that the House considers and passes are enforced properly and proportionately in practice. That is what the Bill is intended to ensure, and I commend it to the House.

Peter Bone: Aha! We are talking about the regulation of business, and one of the annoying things that happens is that businesses receive documents from the Government, from regulators and from local authorities, sometimes undated, always without the name of the sender, and signed with a squiggle. And that is exactly what we have got from the Government today, on the very provision that they are using to try to reduce regulation. I guess that this is because the Minister does not really want to be associated with a Bill that is actually indefensible.
	The Bill will set up what the Government call—let me get this right—the local better regulation office. My goodness me! Could they not have thought of a better title than that? Perhaps something like the department of administrative affairs, or, more accurately, the "Yes Minister" department would have been a much better title and people would have understood what we were trying to do in the House today. The Government are trying to reduce regulation, red tape and costs to business by setting up a super-regulatory department. We are going to create regulators and bureaucrats to regulate and administer other bureaucrats. This is straight out of "Yes Minister".
	The Government might say, "Oh, this is only a small thing. Don't worry about it." However, the new office will have a staff of 25 and a budget of £4.5 million. That is less than one regulator for every regulator that the Government want to regulate; and £4.5 million a year for a staff of 25 works out at £180,000 per person. That sounds like a pretty good salary for those involved. Unfortunately, the Minister was unable to tell us what the chief executive of this new organisation was to be paid.
	I am absolutely assured of one thing: if this new department goes ahead—if this "Yes Ministry" is established—the first thing it will look at will not be better regulation but expanding its empire, taking on more people and costing more money. That is what Government Departments do.

Peter Bone: As usual, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I do not think the Government could possibly deny that their estimate of the costs and numbers will be wrong. I would like to know of any Government estimate of costs and numbers that has ever been right when they are setting up a new department.
	The hon. Member for Solihull referred to this new department earlier as a super-quango. The Government control it, it is funded by the taxpayer, and it will impose its views on 27 regulators and local authorities and tell them how to regulate what they are regulating. The first thing that shows this to be total nonsense is the fact that local authorities know how to regulate in their areas. Their locally elected councillors will be thrown out by their electorate if they do not do their job properly, but there are no such safeguards for this centralised quango or this "Yes Ministry". We cannot get rid of them in the same way as we can get rid of local councillors. What will happen is that decisions will be forced on a local government area by a prime authority, which will not be the local authority area affected, and the councillors will get the blame for it. They will be thrown out, but it will really be the Government's fault.
	The Bill significantly increases Whitehall's control of regulation and local government. That is the Bill's intention. The Minister was, in Jim Hacker style, not quite courageous enough to admit that it amounts to centralisation, but he used a rather similar word. In fact, nobody could really argue that the Bill was not about centralisation. It is a striking example of the Prime Minister's obsessive macro and micro-management of the country. He wants to be able to go into every nook and cranny.
	What my local authority in Wellingborough wants to enforce may be different from what an authority in Brecon and Radnorshire or Glasgow wants to do. I rejoice in that. I rejoice in the localism of my local authority knowing how to regulate locally. I do not want everything to be standard. I do not want Tesco to build everywhere because they have found some prime authority that will allow it to do that.
	What worries me most about this super-regulation and this new department of administrative affairs is the cost. I have with me a document that was not freely available with the explanatory notes, but was very helpfully provided by my research assistant, Mr. Richard Britton. This impact assessment lists all the costs and alleged savings. It has a Minister's signature on it, so we must assume that it has gone through the Government and been approved. There are many figures about savings. It states:
	"The evidence regarding the cost of administering existing partnerships is not consistent; much relates to experiences with the small number of firms with the largest national presence."
	I am not sure exactly what that is supposed to mean. A large firm will have a large national presence, but a small firm will not by virtue of the fact that it is a small firm.
	What of the costs relating to local authorities, which are perhaps the most affected by the changes? They will lose control; their decision making will be removed. If we follow the chain back through the prime authority and through the regulator, we get back to Whitehall overruling local government affairs. Somehow or other, this was supposed to save money. On page 21, the impact assessment states that the total local authority costs are £13.6 million, while the benefits are said to be £14.2 million, with a net annual benefit of £0.5 million. I do not think that the arithmetic quite works there, but that is what it says. It then adds in very small print that there is a one-off cost of £1.9 million, so this is not revenue-neutral to local government. Even if we believe the Alice in Wonderland figures produced by the Government, this is going to cost local government money. Time and again, councillors tell me that the Government take away their powers and force them to do things without funding them for doing so. That is exactly what we have before us today.
	The Government have helpfully given us a figure for the overall cost. I am not sure how they arrived at it, but it is an extraordinary amount: £42 million. That sounds an awfully large cost to me, with a risk of little or no return. Most of the benefits are artificial. The Government talk of savings in lawyers' fees for businesses, but that is merely an aspiration, while the costs are plain to see.
	Let us consider the National Audit Office. For every £1 that the NAO spends, it saves £8. If we are to believe the Mickey Mouse figures in the impact assessment, the return on the Bill might be just over what is spent. If the Government were really keen on reducing regulation and cutting costs, they could get rid of certain elements. They could get rid of regional government at a stroke, saving £230 million a year for businesses. Local authorities would welcome that as well, because the costs of consulting regional government would also go. If the Government really want to help local authorities out, why not abolish the Standards Board for England? That could be done overnight. No one would miss the board, and its abolition would save £12 million. That is a great deal more than the half a million a year that the Government reckon they will save each year, if the one-off cost is ignored.
	This is a centralising measure that could only please someone like Jim Hacker. We are creating a huge department, which will expand. The Government say that the cost in the first year will be £73 million. If we add a quarter to cover their miscalculation, the figure becomes £100 million. The office will start out with 25 staff. That figure sounds as if it was plucked out of the sky. We will see an ever-growing super-quango which will impose more and more regulations on regulators, and the regulators will impose more and more fines on businesses. The Government have doubled the number of sanctions that regulators can use against businesses, which will not improve anything for business or for regulators.
	There is a wonderful and damning statement in the impact assessment. Paragraph 152 on page 50 states:
	"Since the publication in 2005 of the Hampton Review, which looked at the scope for reducing the administrative burdens caused by regulators' inspection and enforcement activities, the Government has been introducing new tools to deliver the better regulation agenda."
	In practice, that is absolute rubbish. I know from my experience of running companies that what they want the Government to do is butt out and not to be involved. Business men say, "Leave us to do our own thing. We know how to run businesses; we know how to employ people; we know how to invest profits. What we don't want is an enormous number of forms and teams of regulators coming in to check what we're doing."
	This super-regulatory office will increase the number of staff. If there are 27 regulators and each takes on another 100 people to go around investigating and imposing the sanctions that the Government tell them they must now impose rather than going to court, that represents a huge amount of lost income for business. The Minister may not see where the loss of income arises, but I know from experience that before a VAT inspection, one spend hours and hours getting everything right. If the VAT inspector turns up—I remember an occasion when he did not bother to do so because it was raining heavily, and we had done all the work for him—he goes through all the paperwork and if he then says, "You've done something wrong", it can be sorted out with him.
	Occasionally, there is an argument of substance. In one instance, a company—I was not involved; it was a different company—felt very strongly that it was not prepared to accept the regulator's guidance and took the case to court. It won the case and there was no damage done to its reputation. Under this procedure, companies will be fined, their reputation will be damaged and it will be reported on the front page of the  Evening Telegraph , or the equivalent local paper. The Government admit in this document that half the fixed penalty notices will be lost, which suggests that they think the regulators will hand them out willy-nilly. The damage done to business, in the loss of time when the regulators visit and in the actual costs imposed, will be extraordinary.
	I wish to draw the House's attention to the stunning example in the impact assessment, to which the Minister did not refer. I know it is not the done thing to show a graph in the House, but I shall try to describe this wonderful graph. It has a red line and a green line. The red line is supposed to be the savings and the green line is the cost. These are the Government's own figures, and one can clearly see that for more than two years the green line is above the—

Andrew Rosindell: I speak this afternoon as the chairman of the British-Isle of Man all-party parliamentary group. I am proud to be closely associated with the Isle of Man. With the support of Members of both Houses of all political persuasions, we have a truly cross-party association that works to cherish, foster and strengthen the relationship between the Parliaments and peoples of the Isle of Man and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
	The Isle of Man is a truly unique place, set in the heart of the Irish sea, equidistant between the United Kingdom and Ireland, with England to the east, Scotland to the north, Wales to the south and Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic to the west. There is nowhere more central to the British Isles than the Isle of Man.
	As a British Crown dependency, the Isle of Man has Her Majesty the Queen as its Head of State. In that role, Her Majesty also holds the title of Lord of Mann. She is represented on the island by a lieutenant-governor, currently Vice-Admiral Sir Paul Haddacks KCB. The Isle of Man is proud of its allegiance to the Crown and its close association with the UK. Indeed, the flag of the three legs of Mann will often fly alongside the Union Jack, demonstrating the Manx people's loyalty to the Queen and their pride in having such a close association with Britain and all the British people on the other side of the water.
	Quite rightly, the people of the Isle of Man are also fiercely determined to retain their rights and freedoms and have done so for longer than most nations in the world today. The Government of the Isle of Man is led by a Chief Minister, currently the hon. Tony Brown MHK—Member of the House of Keys—who previously served as a Speaker of the House of Keys, a role now dutifully performed by the hon. Steve Rodan SHK.
	The Isle of Man is a mature and responsible democracy with a distinct cultural and political identity. It is a self-governing Crown dependency that has its own Parliament and Government and makes its own laws. The Parliament, or Tynwald, comprises the House of Keys and the Legislative Council. It was founded more than 1,000 years ago by the island's Viking ancestors and is the oldest continuous Parliament in the world. It is characterised by strong public and political scrutiny in a system that is largely independent of political parties with an exceptional level of opportunity for citizens to interact with their elected representatives.
	On Monday this week, 7 July 2008, the people of the Isle of Man celebrated their national day, Tynwald day, at St. John's village in the west of the island where the annual ceremony of the Tynwald midsummer court was held. It is a legal requirement established by the island's 9th century rulers. The Tynwald ceremony is one of great pageantry and splendour and was attended this year by Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal accompanied by an honour guard from the Royal Air Force. The Royal Air Force college band provided the military music.
	Tynwald court, together with the island's senior public office holders, assembles on Tynwald hill—a four-tiered mound in the centre of St. John's, reputed to be constructed from sods of earth from every parish of the island. The open-air sitting at Tynwald hill dates back more than 10 centuries and during the ceremony the Deemsters—the Isle of Man's high court judges—promulgate Acts of Tynwald by proclaiming to the people in English and Manx Gaelic the titles of new laws that have been passed during the year. It is also an opportunity for island residents to exercise their ancient right to present a petition for redress of grievance at the foot of Tynwald hill and for the swearing in of the island's four coroners.
	In 2003, Her Majesty the Queen presided as Lord of Mann at the midsummer court of Tynwald. That was an occasion that I was immensely proud to attend at the personal invitation of the President of the Tynwald, the hon. Noel Quayle Cringle MLC—Member of the Legislative Council. In 2005, I was again privileged to be invited to attend Tynwald day, but that time in my capacity as chairman of the all-party group.
	Aside from the formal proceedings, Tynwald day is a public holiday in the Isle of Man and has long been an occasion for the Manx people to gather and meet friends and family at St. John's. A traditional fair is held, along with a variety of family entertainment, including Celtic dancing and music, sideshows, a military band and a fireworks finale.
	The aim of the all-party group is:
	"To promote and foster good relations and co-operation between the Isle of Man and the United Kingdom."
	I am sure that the Minister will shortly confirm that Her Majesty's Government share the same objective. The Isle of Man Government have successfully promoted economic competitiveness and international responsibility in supporting the interests of the island's people.
	The island is a land of opportunity, where the Manx Government strive to create the right environment for the Manx people and businesses to reach their full potential. The Isle of Man is also a nation where people value their quality of life, the beautiful countryside, its suitability for family life and a safe environment. Its innovative and entrepreneurial spirit is encapsulated in the island's branding initiative, "Freedom to Flourish".
	The Isle of Man has a diverse and successful economy, currently in its 25th consecutive year of growth and expanding at an estimated rate of 8 per cent. The per capita national income is now 13 per cent. above that of the United Kingdom and more than 25 per cent. higher than the average of the 15 leading European nations—no mean feat for a small island, and one that our own Government could certainly learn from.
	The successes of the island's economy have allowed continued and substantial investment in public services, including capital investment in recent years in a new acute care hospital, improving local schools and two new water treatment plants. Health and welfare services are based on the UK model, but with significant local enhancements.
	The Isle of Man is famous not only for the Tynwald but for the annual TT races, the Manx cat and of course Manx kippers, which I am pleased to say are sold on the fish stalls of Romford market.
	I commend the Isle of Man for its involvement within the Commonwealth of Nations, through its active participation in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I hope that one day, the Chief Minister of the Isle of Man, along with the Heads of Government of all the other Crown dependencies—Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney and Sark—and of the British overseas territories will be afforded greater recognition within the Commonwealth by being allowed to represent their countries officially at Heads of Government meetings. Small countries and territories should always be given a voice and be able to speak up strongly to defend their rights, freedoms, traditions and common interests. I hope that the Government will begin by allowing the Isle of Man and all the Crown dependencies and overseas territories the opportunity to lay a wreath on Remembrance Sunday every year in Whitehall, and to have their flags displayed at the trooping of the colour, the Queen's official birthday parade. Currently, their flags are not flown, which is unfair, and the time has come to change that rule.
	Freedom is cherished by each and every Manx person, and as a UK parliamentarian, I believe passionately in defending their freedoms. The bond between the UK and the Isle of Man goes substantially deeper than merely sharing the same telephone country code. It is a product of many historical twists and turns over the centuries that form the basis of the very special relationship that we enjoy today. It is a bond composed of deeply entrenched shared values and culture, the will for democracy and a passion for freedom, backed up by a robust legal system.
	Given our geographical and historical proximity, a strong business culture is also shared by the UK and the Isle of Man, which in recent years has succeeded in becoming a gateway to the City of London in ways that are highly beneficial to both. Of course, the Isle of Man is not a member of the European Union.
	There is also a constant flow of tourists across the Irish sea in both directions, and many people from Britain utilise the excellent financial services industry that the Isle of Man offers. There is a tie through citizenship, as Manx people are also British citizens, and through currency, because the Isle of Man pound is aligned to British sterling. Although the Manx language is still used today, there is of course a shared and common usage of the English language.
	Our military ties with the Isle of Man are also very close indeed. The United Kingdom is responsible for the island's defences, and I pay tribute to the many Manx men and women who have proudly served both Queen and country in the British armed forces over many years, and who continue to do so today.
	All the things that I have spoken of in this debate—the special relationship, the shared heritage, and the close links between the Isle of Man and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—have helped to strengthen the exceptionally strong bond between the peoples on both sides of the Irish sea. It is, I believe, an unbreakable bond and one to be treasured. The national motto of the Isle of Man, referring to the three legs of Mann, is:
	"Whithersoever you throw it, it will stand".
	To many, this represents the stability and robustness of the Manx character. I hope that, whithersoever the Isle of Man stands, it will be standing shoulder to shoulder with the United Kingdom as a part of our great British family, together in our shared and beloved British Isles, and that together, the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man will continue to flourish under the Crown for a further thousand years to come.

Michael Wills: I congratulate the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) on securing this debate. He has long been known for his championing of the virtues of Essex, and it is good to hear him championing those of the Isle of Man in this way. He paid tribute to its long and varied history, and it is indeed true that the island has had an extraordinary rich last 1,000 years or so. It is, as the House knows, one of the UK's Crown dependencies, along with the bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey, all of which came under the British Crown by different routes.
	The Isle of Man had a particularly interesting history, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware. It first came under the English Crown in the 14th century. In 1405, the island was granted to Sir John Stanley—a relation, I assume, of the current Member of this House by that name—and from then until 1765 it was ruled by the Earls of Derby and, later, the Dukes of Atholl or Lords of Mann. Acts of Parliament were then passed in 1765 and 1825, and the rights of the Lords of Mann reverted to the Crown. For a long time, the island was governed largely from London.
	Since then, the Isle of Man's constitution has evolved to become a parliamentary democracy, as the hon. Gentleman outlined. The Isle of Man introduced a system of ministerial government just over 20 years ago. There are no political parties on the island, however, and the Head of Government on the island is the Chief Minister. The Tynwald, whose day we celebrate in this debate, was actually founded more than 1,000 years ago by Viking ancestors and is generally considered to be the world's oldest continuous legislative assembly—something that I think we can all celebrate.
	The Isle of Man is precious to this country, and the hon. Gentleman set out cogently and eloquently the reasons why. This is not just a matter of historical links. As he said, the island has proved itself remarkably resilient, flexible and entrepreneurial in responding to the challenges of the modern economy. I have been in this job, which involves responsibility for the Crown dependencies, for about a year now, but I previously occupied a ministerial position in which I was responsible for the island. I visited it in that capacity, and I remember being extremely impressed by the way in which a film industry had been developed there. It is not an obvious place to develop such an industry, but with a great deal of ingenuity, creativity and hard work, a basis was developed for film crews to film in what is actually a very beautiful island. That is just one indication of how entrepreneurial and flexible the Isle of Man is as an economy.
	Of course, the Isle of Man has the advantage of being a highly competitive, low-tax jurisdiction, although it has recently developed growth areas in e-commerce as well as in the film industry, aerospace manufacturing, international shipping, and the space and satellite business. The traditional tourism sector, which is based in part on the TT motorcycle races, is still important. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the Isle of Man became one of the UK's first areas of mass tourism after the war. People were becoming wealthier and recovering from the travails of war, and the Isle of Man was one of the first places that they went to for their annual holiday. That tourism remains very important.
	Value-added tax is another important source of income. The 1979 agreement between the Governments of the UK and the Isle of Man set out a framework for the relations in respect of customs, excise and VAT matters. By virtue of the agreement, the island is brought within the fiscal territory of the EU, and as a result has to comply with EU legislation governing customs and indirect taxation. It must also align almost all of its tax and duty rates with those of the UK.
	The agreement also provides for a unique indirect tax—mainly VAT—revenue sharing arrangement, under which the revenue of the two jurisdictions is pooled and shared according to an agreed formula. Formerly, that was on the basis of the relative populations of the two jurisdictions, as a proxy for consumption. However, following a joint review, it is based now on relative changes in national income—the so-called GNP growth model. Either party can review the terms of the agreement, or even end it, provided that they give a specified period of notice.
	As an offshore finance centre, the Isle of Man has engaged vigorously with various inquiries into such centres, including those conducted by the Treasury Committee. They have examined the extent to which offshore centres are important to worldwide financial markets and are committed to meeting international standards on co-operation and transparency. There is still some progress to be made in those areas, but the Isle of Man was commended by the OECD in October 2007 for its leading role in that organisation's initiative to improve transparency and openness in tax matters and so eliminate harmful tax practices. The way in which the island and its Government have engaged with that agenda deserves tribute. That approach is very much in everyone's interest, but that is especially true for the Isle of Man because, unless jurisdictions engage with the agenda of transparency and openness, their own competitiveness will be damaged in the medium and long term.
	The OECD campaign to eliminate harmful tax practices relies on the automatic exchange of information to prevent cross-border tax evasion. That is achieved through the negotiation of tax information exchange agreements. To date, the Isle of Man has negotiated agreements with the US, the Netherlands, Denmark, the Faroe islands, Finland, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Ireland. Negotiations continue with other jurisdictions, and that is very much to the credit of the Isle of Man.
	The hon. Member for Romford asked about the Commonwealth, and I understand his concerns. It may be helpful if I set out how the Commonwealth is defined. The "Declaration of Commonwealth Principles" of 1971 states that the Commonwealth is
	"a voluntary association of independent sovereign states".
	The Channel islands are Crown dependencies and not independent sovereign states and so are not eligible for Commonwealth membership, although Crown dependencies do have access to some Commonwealth meetings. The Isle of Man has not expressed any intention to push for full Commonwealth membership at this time, but these matters are under constant review. We will look at whether there are ways for the island to participate in Commonwealth meetings.
	The hon. Gentleman noted that the Isle of Man is not a member of the EU, and the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) seemed to find that a source of congratulation. However, the island does have a relationship with the EU that is provided by protocol 3 of the treaty governing the UK's accession to the European Community. Under that protocol, the Isle of Man is part of the customs territory of the Community, and there is free movement of goods and trade between the Isle of Man and member states. However, other Community rules generally do not apply. It is also within the fiscal territory of the European Union, unlike other Crown dependencies such as Jersey and Guernsey. Inevitably, there is a close working relationship with the EU, and in practice the Isle of Man deals closely with it in a number of ways.
	The Ministry of Justice, in which I am the Minister responsible for the Crown dependencies, plays a crucial role in Whitehall in mediating between the Government of the Isle of Man and other Government Departments that have an interest in these matters. Sometimes, that can be quite important. When I was last in this job, the tragic events of 9/11 took place in New York. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recall, there was a significant cessation of air travel throughout the world, as Governments tried to assess the full implications of those tragic events. That cut a life-line to the Isle of Man. He will know how important the air link is to the island. In that job, I was able to help the Isle of Man get that air link established very quickly by liaising with the various Whitehall Departments responsible. I was able to press the case for the essential nature of that air link.
	I hope that the country as a whole, the Government and the Department that I represent can all play our part in making sure that the relationship works to the mutual benefit of all. The hon. Gentleman referred eloquently to the deep bonds between the Isle of Man and the United Kingdom, and spoke about shared values of democracy and freedom. I very much agree with him on that. Those bonds are precious, and I hope that this debate reflects the importance that the House attaches to them. The Government certainly share the hon. Gentleman's views on the importance of those bonds, and I hope that together all Members of the House will work to develop that relationship.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Four o'clock.
	Corrections
	 Official Report, 9 July 2008: In deferred Divisions Nos. 256, 257 and 258, at columns 1521 to 1528, insert "Skinner, Mr. Dennis" in the Ayes.
	In deferred Divisions Nos. 257 and 258, at columns 1523 to 1528, insert "Abbott, Ms Diane" in the Ayes.
	In deferred Division No. 258, at columns 1525 to 1528, insert "Burt, Lorely", "Follett, Barbara", "Foster, Mr. Michael  (Worcester)", "Gapes, Mike", "Gibson, Dr. Ian", "Gilroy, Linda", "Goggins, Paul", "Goodman, Helen", "Griffith, Nia", "Griffiths, Nigel" and "Grogan, John".